Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Riverwind · 05-16-2007, 01:55 PM

The pharisees were who defined what work was. If one reads the Mishnah, one gets an idea of how the process went and how one thing more after another are included as "work".

Is healing on the sabbath "work"? If one truly believes that it is and therefore should be condemned, then one is merely following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Jesus was trying to get people to stop doing stupid things and to focus on the spirit of the law.

I thought this was one of the exact principles that atheists try to get Bible believers to avoid, that is, following the letter of the book rather than the spirit of it. What do you really want of Christians?

3DJay · 05-16-2007, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

I thought this was one of the exact principles that atheists try to get Bible believers to avoid, that is, following the letter of the book rather than the spirit of it. What do you really want of Christians?

Might depend on which part of the book you are refering to. I wouldn't want anyone following the spirit of the numerous genocides, in it. I'd rather them follow "thou shalt not kill", to the letter. On the other hand, I wouldn't want them stoning their disobedient children, to death. On the other hand, I'd want them to believe that the rich won't get into heaven, to the letter. On the other hand, I wouldn't want them stoning someone, to death, for working on the Sabbath. On the other hand, I'd like them to love their neighbours, to the letter. On the other hand, if those neighbours happen to be same sex partners, I wouldn't want believers stoning them to death. Etc. etc. etc.

Of course, I'm just an Agnostic...maybe that's why I can't decide whether "spirit" or "letter" would be best.

Aside from the questions of Christ's divinity and Jewish law, does anyone think that the earliest Christians would have been more like Christian Anarchists? Christian anarchism

Peace

Mr. Logic · 05-17-2007, 05:50 AM

According to Paul, he worked harder than anyone. According to Paul, his knowledge was equal to the apostles. According to Paul, he spoke with Jesus. According to Paul, the "pillars" agreed with him preaching to the Gentiles. According to Paul, he proved Peter wrong. According to Paul.....Paul had a lot to say about himself.

Hi 3D: Thanks for the response.
Many have a lot of knowledge of the scritpures, I happen to have a lot of understanidng, since I am NOT "religious"! This is a neg. word in the N.T. unless you count James' view. Just another reason to reject James as scritpure.

I am a Researcher not a Theologian. I look for the harmony, not tradtion and what some Leader in Christianity said a couple hundred years later.
If you pass a story on from one person to another, 12 times in the same day, the story is very different at the end, and Christianity, whatever that is, has had 2,000 years to change the message, and the evidence is that it has.

You really have missed what Paul said about James. He gives hints all over the place, since he doesn't want to come right out and state the obvious about James, so as not to start a "range war" so to speak.
When Paul says "If even an Angel from Heaven preaches another gospel, let him be accured" (Gal.1) that is his way of saying "I don't care if he is Jesus' Bro he teaching a diff. gospel. Why am I so sure of this? Does he not go on to say that he rebuked Peter for listening to those who came from JAMES?

Luther's rejection of James is censored for the most part! But why? Because they can't defend James with logic, and so don't want to have to.
I have a lot more evidence against James than Luther realized existed. He didn't even know who James was, just that James 2 and Rm.4 don't match, and James for all his talk of the importance of works, didn't do the most important work of all:

Preach the work that Christ did on the cross! He ignored the gospel? But why?
The question is "Why would the Head of the Judaizers, preach the gospel"?
He didn't' and that fits!
Thanks for your reply! Blessings

3DJay · 05-17-2007, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Logic

You really have missed what Paul said about James. He gives hints all over the place, since he doesn't want to come right out and state the obvious about James, so as not to start a "range war" so to speak.
When Paul says "If even an Angel from Heaven preaches another gospel, let him be accured" (Gal.1) that is his way of saying "I don't care if he is Jesus' Bro he teaching a diff. gospel. Why am I so sure of this? Does he not go on to say that he rebuked Peter for listening to those who came from JAMES?

Luther's rejection of James is censored for the most part! But why? Because they can't defend James with logic, and so don't want to have to.
I have a lot more evidence against James than Luther realized existed. He didn't even know who James was, just that James 2 and Rm.4 don't match, and James for all his talk of the importance of works, didn't do the most important work of all:

Preach the work that Christ did on the cross! He ignored the gospel? But why?
The question is "Why would the Head of the Judaizers, preach the gospel"?
He didn't' and that fits!
Thanks for your reply! Blessings

So....Paul became a Christian before, or after, James? Wasn't Paul persecuting Christians, when James was already one?

As far as Luther goes...Hitler had a similar belief system.

Peace

Gamera · 05-17-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

The pharisees were who defined what work was. If one reads the Mishnah, one gets an idea of how the process went and how one thing more after another are included as "work".

Is healing on the sabbath "work"? If one truly believes that it is and therefore should be condemned, then one is merely following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Jesus was trying to get people to stop doing stupid things and to focus on the spirit of the law.

I thought this was one of the exact principles that atheists try to get Bible believers to avoid, that is, following the letter of the book rather than the spirit of it. What do you really want of Christians?

I would say this is a timid rendition of Jesus' relationship to the Law. He was showing how ineffectual and even corrupting the Law is.

Thus:

Matthew 19:8 - He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

Mark 10:5 - But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment

Matthew 5:22 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. 23

Jesus utterly and completely reinterpreted the Law as something that is ineffectual and often promotes the worst of motives.

Mr. Logic · 05-18-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

I consider this a false bifurcation. I have decided this by both faith and reason. There is no reason one cannot have both. It has taken me much of my life to understand this. There is more to life than intellect and intelligence, as you seem to be discovering, yet neither can it be all feeling and emotion.

If by both, the one believes that God's message was intentionally preserved ("just enough", I suppose) for his main and major message(s) to come down through time to us. These messages were passed on from Jew to Jew and then Christian to Christian down to us today. I understand quite well the transmission process, and consider the textual "disruption" minor. Must I take it on faith that the message has survived in tact to me? Sure, and I do.

Do I believe that God can communicate with us today outside the Bible? Sure, but I think it is much more difficult for us to decipher...or perhaps it is just so for me. Do you have difficultly discerning God's will for your life as a Christian?

I certainly do not believe so. I believe he is a living, personal God.

However, I believe that one of the main ways that I can know about his will for my life and my actions is through the Bible. Without the Bible, I would be making God in my own image.

Are you making God in your own image? Are you making him what you want him to be and making whatever you feel is "right" or "wrong" to be what God must think is "right" and "wrong"? I don't believe this is the way God works. I believe God helps guide us along in the right direction by "feelings" and "emotions", but I also believe that the Bible is his direct communication to us through his messengers.

So, it is not via scriptures alone that we can know God, but I still don't understand how one can be a Christian without the Bible. One can be a God-believer but seriously how can one be a Christian without know about Christ or what it actually means to follow a Christ? It makes no "rational" sense to me.

I don't what to shock you Riverwind, but if you truly want to believe in Scripture then you need to know the diff. btw Scriture, and The Bible.
Was Paul talking about a 66 Completed Canon when he made the statement about the importance of scritpure?

The scriptures are flat out amazing but few understand them, because they go to divided up churches, who ignore scripture and 1 Cor. 1:10.
How can someone say that they believe what is written and then thumb thier nose at that verse?
Which ways are God's? Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic? No, one must cut the ties of these groups. They all have creads and beliefs and if you find by searching scripture that they are wrong, must will ignore you or give you the boot. That is the truth of the matter.
Now where they are all wrong, and influ. by the Early RCC, World Church!
(Of the World) is being stuck in the Gospels. IOW, Jesus said to keep the Law of Moses, right? Agreed, but who was he talking to? The church?
The Church age bagan on Pentecost, not before "On this Rock I WILL (future tense) build my church" That rock, btw was Peter's statement of who Jesus was, as revealed to him by God the Father.

I have been debating Cof C People for over 10 years on line and more overall.
A Fanatic that I use to work with insisted after I put my all out for Christ, that I get water baptized. I couldn't see why, but realized that he might be right. I did my own research,and he was there everyday trying to show me how wrong I was to even challenge this, by giving me list after list of verses that he was sure proved how RIGHT HE WAS. He never, and I mean never checked out any of the verses that I gave him that at the time, seemed to show him wrong. I was very gullable back then and didn't realize how People like him totally ignore verses that don't agree with them.

I have learned the hard way how self righteous Religious People can be.
That is why the word "religion" is a neg word when used by the Chosen ones in the N.T. A fact that few know, and most don't care about!

Bottom line is that you are right as rain. Scritpure is everything and there a definitive answers, no matter what the Parrots of dogma say, with their self assurace and their unscriptural denominations! I don't declare, I prove, what has been proven to me by a careful and objective study!
Blessings

Riverwind · 05-18-2007, 06:54 AM

Logic,

Believe me, nothing could shock me in biblical studies. You would have little way of knowing, but I am certainly familiar with the development of the canon of the Bible, textual criticism, archaeology, and many other things. Some are surprised to find out that there are knowledgeable Christians who still believe the Bible is the word of God.

Everyone, not just Christians, claim a knowledge of "the only truth" about the Bible. It's really up to you what you believe.

Doug Shaver · 05-18-2007, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Without a Bible, how would one even know who Christ was or what to believe about him?

I don't think Peter is suggesting that you abandon the Bible. During all the years I believed that Jesus' historicity, I saw the Bible as a source of information about him. I just didn't assume that it was an inerrant source, except during my fundamentalist period.

If your next question is how I distinguished the true statements about Jesus from the false, I simply applied my reasoning skills to the best of my ability. Of course it helped that, having left the fundamentalists, I no longer supposed that I would burn in hell forever if I happened to reach a wrong conclusion about Jesus.

credoconsolans · 05-18-2007, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

Step 1: Understanding that the first Christians were actually Jewish. They wouldn't have believed they were following a new religion. They'd have been practicing Jews, who believed their Messiah had come. And, the evolution of the Trinity, is somewhat recorded. There's no real evidence that the first Christians believed Jesus was God, which is the greatest deviation between Judaism and Christianity.
Peace

They were? I thought the first Christians were mostly Gentiles that Paul recruited. I always thought Jesus' Jewish followers were still Jewish, following a sort of Reform Judaism, not being 'Christians'.

3DJay · 05-21-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by credoconsolans

They were? I thought the first Christians were mostly Gentiles that Paul recruited. I always thought Jesus' Jewish followers were still Jewish, following a sort of Reform Judaism, not being 'Christians'.

Let me get this straight...

Quote:

Christian

SYLLABICATION: Chris·tian
PRONUNCIATION: krschn
ADJECTIVE: 1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
NOUN: 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

So...you're saying that Christ's own apostles and disciples ... and any other pre-Paul believers, and any believers who didn't follow Paul's teachings, would not fit under that definition?

You consider that true Christians equate only to the practitioners of Paulinism?

Peace

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-16-2007, 01:55 PM	#51
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	The pharisees were who defined what work was. If one reads the Mishnah, one gets an idea of how the process went and how one thing more after another are included as "work". Is healing on the sabbath "work"? If one truly believes that it is and therefore should be condemned, then one is merely following the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. Jesus was trying to get people to stop doing stupid things and to focus on the spirit of the law. I thought this was one of the exact principles that atheists try to get Bible believers to avoid, that is, following the letter of the book rather than the spirit of it. What do you really want of Christians?

05-17-2007, 05:50 AM	#53
Mr. Logic Regular Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Myrtle Beach, sc Posts: 102	According to Paul, he worked harder than anyone. According to Paul, his knowledge was equal to the apostles. According to Paul, he spoke with Jesus. According to Paul, the "pillars" agreed with him preaching to the Gentiles. According to Paul, he proved Peter wrong. According to Paul.....Paul had a lot to say about himself. Hi 3D: Thanks for the response. Many have a lot of knowledge of the scritpures, I happen to have a lot of understanidng, since I am NOT "religious"! This is a neg. word in the N.T. unless you count James' view. Just another reason to reject James as scritpure. I am a Researcher not a Theologian. I look for the harmony, not tradtion and what some Leader in Christianity said a couple hundred years later. If you pass a story on from one person to another, 12 times in the same day, the story is very different at the end, and Christianity, whatever that is, has had 2,000 years to change the message, and the evidence is that it has. You really have missed what Paul said about James. He gives hints all over the place, since he doesn't want to come right out and state the obvious about James, so as not to start a "range war" so to speak. When Paul says "If even an Angel from Heaven preaches another gospel, let him be accured" (Gal.1) that is his way of saying "I don't care if he is Jesus' Bro he teaching a diff. gospel. Why am I so sure of this? Does he not go on to say that he rebuked Peter for listening to those who came from JAMES? Luther's rejection of James is censored for the most part! But why? Because they can't defend James with logic, and so don't want to have to. I have a lot more evidence against James than Luther realized existed. He didn't even know who James was, just that James 2 and Rm.4 don't match, and James for all his talk of the importance of works, didn't do the most important work of all: Preach the work that Christ did on the cross! He ignored the gospel? But why? The question is "Why would the Head of the Judaizers, preach the gospel"? He didn't' and that fits! Thanks for your reply! Blessings

05-18-2007, 06:54 AM	#57
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	Logic, Believe me, nothing could shock me in biblical studies. You would have little way of knowing, but I am certainly familiar with the development of the canon of the Bible, textual criticism, archaeology, and many other things. Some are surprised to find out that there are knowledgeable Christians who still believe the Bible is the word of God. Everyone, not just Christians, claim a knowledge of "the only truth" about the Bible. It's really up to you what you believe.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.